[tok]

quality of the geometry (long narrow triangles) - this is really up to the person creating the model. Even though it is technically possible to process the geometry at the time of export it is not always desirable (as far as I know no other Maxwell plugin is doing that) and as the model can be easily modified in SU that is the better way to handle the problem. So I am not ready to accept the blame on the plugin here

I am not blaming you, Pavol (though I have to remark that Pelias is a delicate nick: the thessalian king Pelias, Jason's uncle, was cut into pieces and cooked ). As the origin Sketchup geometry looks much different to what shows up in MXstudio afterwards I thought it was processed during it's export. If it is not, you are right of course: this is an SU issue. I cannot find it easy to modify the model inside SU, however; depending on the model it will be rather cumbersome and incalculable.

So there are two problems coinsiding unfortunately: insufficient SU geometry and Maxwell's sunlight issue. Irresolvable at the moment, it seems.

[Mihai]

It's a shame that no architectural type programs have started to notice that many users actually want to do a nice render of their geometry and so need a good mesh for the renderer to render properly (more highrez, turn into quads where possible and not just triangles). AFAIK this is a problem with all these pure architectural programs, they don't really work with meshes when you're modeling and they just offer basic triangulation options when you do need a mesh....

I have seen from Moi3D that is is possible to write a more intelligent triangulator, avoiding very long thin triangles and making quads where possible.

[Stinkie7000]

Valid points.

In the meantime, I guess we have to divide each face we want to use displacement on into small squares?

Using components (instances) this might not even be that bad.

[pelias]

I am not blaming you, Pavol (though I have to remark that Pelias is a delicate nick: the thessalian king Pelias, Jason's uncle, was cut into pieces and cooked ).

I have to admit you got me with this one This is a piece I wasn't aware of. My family name in fact is Elias which is a Slovak transcription of Elijah - a prophet in Israel in the 9th century BC - so another piece of historical connection there...

In terms of SketchUp issues - the SU geometry is not processed at the export so we are really left with what SU will provide.

In terms of architectural applications I have slightly better experiences with ArchiCAD - the geometry there is typically better (but not in every case). On the other hand you don't get instances there due to limitations of Graphisoft rendering SDK (at least that is the current status - I am talking to Graphisoft about that).

Pavol

[Richard]

Pavol Wrote:::

• 2. sun/location issue

Please note that the city name is not exported from SU (there is no way to do that) - what is exported though is the location - latitude and longitude which definitely should match the values in SU. I've tested it with Sydney values (151E, 33S) and it works fine for me. Anything I am overlooking here?

Don't think there is anything you have missed mate though I just randomly get different lats and longs! I really think it is a problem with my installation. I removed the old plugin and MR app before installing the new version but still no luck. Mind you I did this about 5 times with still no luck.

• 3. list of materials for easy editing of material ssignments

Obviously this is a little bit late for this version of the plugin (which is a ready and waits to be released) but I am putting that on my ToDo list. It should be doable and it will improve the situation with the material assignment .

Mate that will be the best inclusion in the plugin since sliced bread!!

• 4. names for emitter objects

Just wait for the new version of the plugin - it supports groups/components with their names so it is much easier to work with the exported geometry in Studio. Typically it is enough to create a group with the emitting geometry and name it in SU - you will get it as a group in Studio and it will keep the name...

Same as above - Excellent stuff!!!!!!

• 5. not being able to render directly from export

I do not have enough information on this so far. What platform you are on (Win, OSX)? What is the version of the plugin you are running (you can get that info from SU - Plugins/MaxwellExport/About Maxwell Export)

Mate I was using MR 1.6.1 and 1.10 of the plugin though had to revert to MR 1.5.1 and V1.8 of the plugin to get some action again. Mind you in the change back I have also created some other problems.. I can only imagine I'm having some installation problems but can't find any posts on overcoming the issues!! Bugger!!

Thanks for your hard work mate! Always appreciated this end!!!

[/quote]

[Richard]

It's a shame that no architectural type programs have started to notice that many users actually want to do a nice render of their geometry and so need a good mesh for the renderer to render properly (more highrez, turn into quads where possible and not just triangles). AFAIK this is a problem with all these pure architectural programs, they don't really work with meshes when you're modeling and they just offer basic triangulation options when you do need a mesh....

I have seen from Moi3D that is is possible to write a more intelligent triangulator, avoiding very long thin triangles and making quads where possible.

Just a question for you mate!!?? Are you saying that working with meshes increases resolution??? Please of what?? Texture maps? Bump? or just displacement?????

Certainly if it effects bump performance it is something seriously to consider!!!

I haven't been testing any displacement due to the problems I'm having with what seems to be an installation problem between the plugin and MR V1.6.1 - though the tests I did straight from Studio took so long that I deemed for everyday stuff it is just too much a drag on render times to be useful v's overall effect when I can utilise real geometry. With instances this will really be a marked effect.

Thanks in advance!!!

[Mihai]

I ment the meshing should be done in a more efficient way. With bump you won't have problems but a mesh like this can be trouble when using displacement:



It's better if a mesh is equally triangulated, instead of these very long thin triangles. You would have to increase precision to avoid artifacts. With a more even mesh you wouldn't have to do this.

Besides the displacement issue there would be cases where you want certain parts of your building to have a more dense mesh such as columns.

[Archidea]

(First rate citizens?)

http://www.luxology.com/whatismodo/plug ... orter.aspx

we could repair the geometry in Modo
..but we don't have the Modo to Maxwell plugin

maybe Pavol could do it for us?.. The Sketchupers